By Potpher Mbulo
If life did "evolve" into existence, how did it come into being? I know that evolutionist do not have to discuss abiogenesis to work in Neo-Darwinism. After all Neo-Darwinist do not even attempt to explain how any one of the many biological systems at molecular level could have come into existence by the Darwinian mechanism. All we hear them say is that we evolved from ape like creatures. Is it too much a thing to ask them to explain at molecular level how an eye evolved? But you should know that abiogenesis is a branch of Evolution, and Evolution can be defined as continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things are hypothesized to have arisen from a single living source which itself assumably arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world which (non-living matter) in turn “evolved” from energy which hypothetically has always been from eternity past.
It thus follows that such a pure naturalist misconstrued “theory” encompasses the Big Bang hypothesis, Abiogenesis, Neo- Darwinism and whatever naturalistic hypothesis you deem fit or have been proposed to replace the incumbent misconceptions of the general “theory”. If one part is defective how does the rest of the system (general “theory”) work? Worse still in your case, the whole system has no single workable mechanism. At every point its all trash!!!!
As scientists, we cannot confidently talk about mutations and adaptations if we deliberately ignore the question of how life evolved in the first place. Most evolutionists shun the topic relating the origin of the first building blocks of life. To make matters worse, the issue of how information coded in DNA arose is a thorn in the fresh of evolutionists. If the question of how did life originate has not been answered yet, those of us who are prudent, shall never accept the hypothesis that claims that a single organism did change into an infinite array of creatures. An erected scientific theory is that which is based on a solid foundation. We shall always entertain it as a hypothesis. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once said:
"It is a mark of an educated mind that entertains a thought without accepting it."
The controversy surrounding the origin of the first organism in this far-advanced ere of science today proves that Neo-Darwinism has no base. I shall in this thesis show that indeed this is the case.
What is life? What do we mean by life? Spiritually speaking, life is a status. Scientifically, life is not a status, but a process - a series of chemical reaction using carbon-based molecules, by which matter is taken into the system and is used to assist the system's growth and reproduction, with waste products being expelled. I shall restrict myself to discuss this subject within the scientific broad view definition of life.
A virus cannot qualify to be a living organism because matter is not taken into a system and waste products are not being expelled out of a system. It is for this reason that biologists disagree on whether viruses should be considered a form of life. A cell is a biological system in which the processes occur.
Early experiments suggested that it was relatively simple to produce some of the building blocks of life such as amino acids, the components of proteins. However, the euphoria of the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 has given way to a paradigm crisis of 1993 in origin of life research. The wishful, yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor has been replaced by the more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. This is the venom that volcanoes vomit. These are poisonous to life. This atmosphere poses a much more difficult challenge. Molecules relevant for life would be much rarer. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor induced by UV rays. Molecular oxygen would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules. As we see it now, it is evident that the much talked about Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 has currently been thrashed aside by new data that indicate a more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. These are the gases that volcanoes vomit out and we all admit that. The wishful yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor that Chemist S. L. Miller used can not find place in the origin of life in the light of what volcanoes belch out. Worse still, even today's experiments in which researchers try to simulate the early earth have been severely crippled. These experiments generally use purified reactants, isolated energy sources and exaggerated energy levels. These are procedures that unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product. Another thing to lament about is that the products are protected from the destructive effects of the energy sources that produced them in the first place. It is thus unthinkable to conceive that life could have evolved in the deep ocean vents. How about at the surface, precisely the more promising ponds that have special clays that act as catalysis for formation of organic molecules? What one needs is just to answer the question: what are the effects of oxygen gas on organic molecules? The sure answer is oxidation of the very thing we hypothetically want to achieve. If we presume an atmosphere that has no oxygen then we ought to bear in mind that the ozone layer is a product of oxygen. No oxygen means no protection from deadly UV. Worse still some of the water vapor molecules will be broken down by UV rays resulting into Oxygen gas, which causes oxidation of organic molecules. Dr. Klaus Dose once wrote:
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988): 348-56.]
Again, in 1983, evolutionist researcher C. Ponnamperuma announced that all five of the critical organic compounds called "bases" (Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Uricil and Adenine) that are responsible for coding genetic information in the DNA and RNA of living cells were synthesized in a Miller-Urey type of experiment.
But firstly, it should be noted that experimental results are totally different from natural results as earlier pointed out in my preamble where I did say that these experiments generally use purified reactants, isolated energy sources and exaggerated energy levels. These are procedures that unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product. If asked I can elaborate more.
Secondly, what was achieved in the experiment were bases and not and an array of bases that can depict a gene.
Thirdly, but all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. A harpaharzedly and arbitrary arrangement of a simple array of such bases can not be equated to the complex DNA molecule and its numerous highly specialized codes for synthesis of proteins.
The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code - the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. DNA is "transcribed" into RNA; RNA is "translated" into protein; geneticists speak of the "genetic code". All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Though chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life. The simplest possible cell, according to recent theoretical analysis, would need a bare minimum of 256 genes coding for the required enzymes, which are long polypeptides. And it is doubtful whether such a hypothetical organism could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment. Indeed the major difficulty is linking up the building blocks at all, let alone in the right sequence. This is because thermodynamic considerations show that long molecules like proteins and nucleic acids tend to break up into their component monomers (amino acids and nucleotides respectively). Any undirected energy input is more likely to be destructive rather than constructive, and to increase the variety of undesirable side reactions possible.
Again which one evolved first between DNA and RNA? You need DNA to make up RNA while you need RNA to make up DNA. Genetic information does not just spontaneously arise from random DNA sequences. The informational code, the relevant molecules, all catalysts and a "house" constitute a complex irreducible system that needs all it's constituents to be present and functioning. The terminology "irreducible complexity" was coined by Professor Michael Behe. One time I was privileged to watch him on TV and this is what he had to say:
"A system is irreducibly complex if it is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Life at the molecular level is replete with such systems, and biochemists do not even attempt to explain how any one of them could have come into existence by the Darwinian mechanism.”
The result of biochemical investigation of cellular mechanisms, according to Behe, "is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘Design!’"
The much celebrated evolutionist biologist Sidney W. Fox's experiment that shows that simple heating of dry amino acids can create protein molecules leaves a lot to be desired. Once water is added these proteins assume the shape of round, cell-like objects called proteinoids, which take in small molecules from the surrounding liquid, grow by attaching each other and divide. This at face value seems to depict a resemblance to bacteria and infact experts have trouble distinguishing them from bacteria. But ladies and gentlemen, liquid water must have been critical to achieve evolution of the first organic molecules. After all, the first living things were strictly aquatic creatures. Not only that, liquid water is a fluid medium in which materials could move and aggregate. A point should be noted here that in the sea you need high concentration to make it possible for aggregation. Back to the topic at hand, furthermore, don't evolutionists believe we all evolved from the sea? I Potpher know that all cells of all living organisms are strictly aquatic. Land-based organisms are merely more-less like protective shells filled up with millions of aquatic cells. So as it were if we presume that evolution did bring forth life from organic molecules which in turn did evolve from inanimate none living world, then the place of this process must be the sea. This fact then defeats Sidney W. Fox's initial dry environment. I'm in no way suggesting that I believe that life evolved in the sea. If the sea was primordial soup of amino acids and simple proteins, why don't we have a record in fossil of such a prevalent occurrence imbedded in sediment containing the organic slime of the primitive sea? Another issue to consider is how did big molecules such as complex proteins and DNA find themselves inside an impenetrable primitive cell membrane (proteinoid)? How about how did only left-handed molecules find themselves inside such a closet? Worse still don't we know that left-handedness is destroyed by intense heat?
It is a scientific fact that without the ozone layer, the UV light will destroy organic molecules. It is for this reason that indeed fossil and geochemical evidence suggest that life did not emerge on earth's land surface until oceans plants which were shielded from sunlight by the sea water, emitted enough oxygen to build up the ozone (O3) layer in the earth's atmosphere. This layer could then shield land-based life from UV rays. But as earlier argued, a dry environment rich in protein with heat energy is a prerequisite needed to achieve a primitive cell membrane. So if it was dry then it also means that UV did a stoppage to the assumed progress. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor. It therefore appears that both the shield and the organism simultaneously evolved against the dictates of natural law and probability. So one just has to conclude as persuaded by evidence that design is the only option that could have conceived life.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving,
Potpher
